Hillary Clinton: Religious Beliefs Must Change for Abortion Acceptance

... the dictatorship of the proletariat and withering of the state, along with religious "alterations" to suit gov'tal priorities.

In a sense, she's right in that indeed, to increase acceptance of abortion it'll take changes in religious mores. But she's scary-wrong to imply it could be something a Hildebeast administration would want, much less pursue. I could see her taking such measures as de-non-profit-statusing any church that teaches pro-life positions. Can that be done? Sure it can. It's an exec branch function to determine status based on legis. guidelines, which are subject to interpretation, of course.

“religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed”

So I think abortion is wrong. However, I also think that up to a certain point, a woman has the right to decide what to do. (This issue has yet to be reconciled with the father's rights, but let's set that aside for a moment.)

My take on abortion can be summed up in the Lion King: The Circle of Life.

It can also be summed up in a few lines of Schiller's Ode to Join (used in the Ninth) and which I must paraphrase: "And whoever was never able to [call one soul theirs] must creep tearfully away from this circle."

Finally, it can be summed up in Schopenhauer's "Great Chain of Being."

In a nutshell, life is continuous and its process must not be disturbed.

This is the core of thousands of years of philosophy, music, art, religion, spirituality.

And this idiot Clinton says "religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed"

Is she that much an opportunistic fucking idiot?

I mean, if she supports abortion, fine: I can dig that. But did she really mean what she said?

OK... I will calm down. Essentially, this idiot just said: "The Abrahamic religions must be changed."

Um... OK... so why can't she just say that... Lack of courage maybe? I wish someone, anyone, would take her to task on this and ask her to explain what she meant... For right now, it is clever and effusive bullshit that masks an agenda opposed to the very nature of religion

Brainwashing women into abandoning morals is the oldest trick of feminism.

I oppose discretionary abortion because of my belief in the sanctity of life. Many religions teach that life is sacred, but one doesn't have to be religious to value life in and of itself. And for me, there's no fence sitting on this issue. You either value life or you don't. There is no neutral territory. If you're "neutral," you don't value life.

Hillary wants us to abandon our belief in the sanctity of life. She wants us to adopt the opposite: that life has no value. Hillary thinks the belief in the sanctity of life gets in the way of women getting abortions. She's right. Valuing life does get in the way. But it's a belief most people won't abandon just for the convenience of a woman.

If the life of an unborn child has no value, then why does the life of a pregnant woman have value?

Religion has survived since the beginning of time, I don't think Hillary is going to change their view on abortion anytime soon. However the number of atheists identifying as pro-life is steadily increasing and they tend to base their beliefs on science and quest for successful society. Even the great atheist, Christopher Hitchens, leaned pro-life in his later years and was working with pro-life groups at the time of his death.

One does not have to be religious to value and protect the unborn, or to find abortion (especially late term) as immoral. One does not even need to believe in an exact point where personhood does begin (or should begin). Here at MANN there is currenlty an article posted titled "This is a Baby's Brain on Pain." If one reads the article, certainly they would conclude that unborn fetuses also feel pain and putting an unborn child thru that type of pain is immoral.

Pro-life atheists sites and articles:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/pro-life_atheist.html

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/hentoff.html

https://www.facebook.com/secularprolife

https://www.facebook.com/AtheistAgnosticProLifers?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/ProLifeAtheists?fref=ts

"As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words 'unborn child,' even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality." —Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great (pp. 220-21)

A posting mystery problem came up for member xtrnl, so I experimented w/ wording a bit and after minor changes to syntax, got it to work. Comments from xtrnl:

---

Then there is the argument that human beings are biologically defined by DNA. Each person is a unique product of 46/47 chromosomes except for identical twins, triplets, etc.

My point is this: The information which makes a human being is present at conception. It's like an author writing the first two lines of a book. Once those lines exist, so does the book (unfinished perhaps, but still in existence). It is no different with humans. Thus, life begins at conception.